February 15, 2009
Assisted Suicide Activists Will Seek to Force Doctors to Participate
Opposition to Senate Resolution 7, Same-Sex Marriage
The Honorable Ellen CorbettChairman, Senate Judiciary Committee
State Capital Building
Sacramento, CA 95814
Members of the Senate Judiciary Committee / The Honorable Tom Harman
Vice Chairman, Senate Judiciary Committee
State Capital Building
Sacramento, CA 95814
Dear Senate Judiciary Committee Members,
Please oppose Senate Resolution SR 7. The voters have twice affirmed that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid and recognized in California – most recently by 52.3% in November 2008. This was a simple amendment to the constitution, not a revision as the resolution maintains.
The civil right for traditional marriage, like all civil rights, has always had qualifications such as age, distance of genetic relationship, and sexual complementarity. While some may feel qualifications are discriminatory, qualifications are critical to the public interest, justice and the common good. Proponents of same-sex marriage have failed to make a convincing argument to the voters for rejecting the fundamentalqualification for civil marriage – sexual complementarity.
Traditional marriage has been and will always be the foundation of the natural family, uniting a mother and father with each other and with the children that result from their union. Proponents have not addressed the public interest and the consequences for children and society ofredefining marriage to just a contract between any adults for theirprivate benefit.
With their vote in November 2008, Californians reasserted the public interest for traditional marriage and its fundamental qualification. It is critical that qualifications always be established according to the public interest and the common good, rather than the desires of special interests. And, it is important that legislators that have been elected to represent the people do just that, rather than advocating against the sovereign authority of the people who elected them.
We respectfully ask that you reject SR 7.
Sincerely,
William B. May
cc:Senator Marc Leno
February 15, 2009
Opposition to Assembly Resolution 5, Same-Sex Marriage
The Honorable Mike FeuerChairman, Assembly Judiciary Committee
State Capital Building
Sacramento, CA 95814
Members of the Assembly Judiciary Committee / The Honorable Van Tran
Vice Chairman, Assembly Judiciary Committee
State Capital Building
Sacramento, CA 95814
Dear Assembly Judiciary Committee Members,
Please oppose Assembly Resolution HR 5. The voters have twice affirmed that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid and recognized in California – most recently by 52.3% in November 2008. This was a simple amendment to the constitution, not a revision as the resolution maintains.
The civil right for traditional marriage, like all civil rights, has always had qualifications such as age, distance of genetic relationship, and sexual complementarity. While some may feel qualifications are discriminatory, qualifications are critical to the public interest, justice and the common good. Proponents of same-sex marriage have failed to make a convincing argument to the voters for rejecting the fundamentalqualification for civil marriage – sexual complementarity.
Traditional marriage has been and will always be the foundation of the natural family, uniting a mother and father with each other and with the children that result from their union. Proponents have not addressed the public interest and the consequences for children and society of redefining marriage to just a contract between any adults for theirprivate benefit.
With their vote in November 2008, Californians reasserted the public interest for traditional marriage and its fundamental qualification. It is critical that qualifications always be established according to the public interest and the common good, rather than the desires of special interests. And, it is important that legislators that have been elected to represent the people do just that, rather than advocating against the sovereign authority of the people who elected them.
We respectfully ask that you reject HR 5.
Sincerely,
William B. May
cc:Assembly Member Tom Ammiano